Concerning The Ongoing Debate Over Skeptic /scofftic/denialist Participation On The Bff And Proving Bigfoot's Existence

[hiflier]

Hello Nakani,

May I respectfully ask a sensible question then? If you know there's no proof of Bigfoot, and I know there's no proof of Bigfoot, and just about everyone else on this Forum knows there's no proof of Bigfoot then why would you bother to keep asking for proof? What would be the point or advantage of it?

Edited August 29, 2015 by hiflier

[David NC]

Nakani I have no harsh feelings toward you, I know it is very hard to get a feel for what a person is about from reading the cold hard letters on a computer screen. I try to keep my words "softer" but I do not have the eloquence that others have. I apologize if I "sounded" harsh.   I and many others seem to get more grief from using the word proof when talking about our experiences and even some of the members here that actually do research in their area and collect various evidence, they run into it as well. There is nothing wrong with asking to see any supporting "evidence" to an experience. And asking about my experience, I only have pictures of the print and a cast of the track as "physical" supporting evidence, everything else have been personal experiences that were not recorded and left no physical evidence.

Shadowborn I understand what you are saying, I have already proven thier existence to me, to my satisfaction and do not need science to tell me what to believe. What I am saying in the line you have quoted is that the word Proof starts more arguments and is used by skoftics and denialist as ammunition and sometimes like the antagonizing kid on the playground that cannot come up with anything better than to repeat nananabooboo  until you cannot take it anymore. . I could do great calling what we all discuss evidence if it would be made across the board, being that denialist and skoftics cannot use the word as ammo anymore.

Edited August 29, 2015 by David NC

[Trogluddite]

After 17 (or 18?) pages and counting, I think the original proposition needs tweeked.  

 

The OP posits 3 camps:  Skeptics/Scoftics/Denialists <---> True Believers w/knowers off to the side.  

 

Knowers shoud be to the side - if you state you encountered a Bigfoot you are either:

    1) being truthful,

    2) being truthful but (honestly) didn't accurately identify what you encountered,

    3) being truthful but under an incapacity (i.e., mental illness, substance abuse) that precludes reliance on your claimed encounter, or

    4) flat out lying/hoaxing.

 

(I'm not calling anyone a liar, these are just the logical alternatives.)  Everyone can form their own opinion, based on a variety of factors, as to whether they give credence to any individual claim of an encounter, but the only person who knows for certain is the person who was there.  

 

The remaining breakdown (and the title) creates a false dichotiomy.  Essentially, the groups are:

 

Scoftics/denialists/baiters ---> open to existence but skeptical ---> believe in existence, but not all claims ---> Commissars/Baiters 

 

 Example A of a Commissar: 

[he weeps]

 

If folks would get up  on the evidence, now that wouldn't be necessary, now would it.  So get up on the evidence, and stop arguing something you don't have a shred of evidence to back 'cuz it's all on my side!

 

[ducks]

 

I have read 8,000 of these posts and can offer the following statistical breakdown: 

# of posts that offer any evidence or discuss evidence  -  0

# of posts that demand loyalty to the existence of Bigfoot - all the rest 

 

As Roguefooter said more succinctly above, which I apparently deleted, there are denialists on both sides.  

 

This thread has been helpful for me, thanks. As I stated earlier, the tool to deal with this issue is contained in the Forum's mission statement. The purpose (among others) is to discuss the EVIDENCE. Those who feel the way to discuss evidence is to deny that it IS evidence of the presence of BF, are violating the Magna Carta of the BFF, no more, no less. Any member who sees this happening in any thread, has the tool to make it stop.

 

To discuss evidence requires two sides.  I agree that it does not add anything meaningful or constructive to any topic to simply say, "Bigfoot does not exist, therefore, this evidence is meaningless."  However, when a critical question is asked of offered evidence or a proposed theory, it is equally meaningless and unconstructive for the response to simply be, "Science, shut up." 

 

The baiters on both side are free to continue baiting because there is no cost for them to constantly bait.  If they had a limited supply of posts, perhaps they would spend them more wisely.  Or at least, everyone else would only have to deal with them for the first 8-10 days of the month.  

[Guest]

Hiflier,

The question will be different for each claim. It might be asking if a police report was filed or did you find any hairs, etc..

for me I'm looking for something that says yes this happened or ultimately, yes Bigfoot is real.

I also think it serves to check people who might be trolling with false claims.

[hiflier]

Hallo Nakani,

Another question if I may and I will apologize ahead for being blunt. Also this isn't a trick question a trap or an "I gotcha" because it's something I honestly would like to know. Do you think that Bigfoot exists. If not do you think there is any possibility that it could exist. And I'll be up front here. I'm asking because I want to know what your position is when you engage with someone on the matter of evidence or even if you think there is such a thing as evidence- especially if your stance is one in which you are adamant about non-existence.

I don't think members actually ask these kinds of questions and maybe you've never been asked these questions directly but I don't think it's a bad thing to do IMO. At least it's honest and isn't an ambush.

Edited August 29, 2015 by hiflier

[Bonehead74]

The baiters on both side are free to continue baiting because there is no cost for them to constantly bait.  If they had a limited supply of posts, perhaps they would spend them more wisely.  Or at least, everyone else would only have to deal with them for the first 8-10 days of the month.  

 

 

If nothing else, I agree there are a few regular posters who are master baiters.

[Trogluddite]

What you did there? I see it.

[hiflier]

Hello Bonehead74,

??!?!

*I saw what you did there* but Trogluddite got there first.

Edited August 29, 2015 by hiflier

[Bonehead74]

Obviously I am referring to those who's baiting has risen to a masterful level.

 

I'm not sure what you two are on about...

Edited August 29, 2015 by Bonehead74

[hiflier]

Hello Bonehead74,

Mmmhmm.

[David NC]

From what I can glean from all this is that there are 2 camps    

 

1:  People who want to respectfully discuss this topic as is stated in the rule book.

2: People that really have no interest in the topic of Sasquatch but say they do and squeeze around the rules to get some jollies I.E. Trolls.

[Faenor]

Hello Faenor,

 

 

And I think it is an accurate appellation. If one repeatedly denies the existence of a thing by voicing one's skepticism through scoffing in a systematic fashion, one becomes a denialist and scofftic by definition.

There was another popular term used to describe people who worked as slaves. It was an accurate apellation since the latin root of the word meant black. It began as a neutral term.

 

Crummy analogy.

Its extreme but its apt. The terms scofftic and denialist are used as pejoratives. Do you feel the folks who use these terms are being respectful and that its the best method to display an opinion about anothers beliefs or thoughts. Do you think the people labeled scofftic or denialist came to this forum saying "im a denialist scofftic thats the best way to describe my attitudes towards the subject of bigfoot".

There used as negatives around here same as "believer" or "blargger" or whatever at the skeptics forum.

[David NC]

I do not use the title Skeptic in a negative connotation but I am happy to blend Scofftic and Denialist into a single more appropriate word that fits better not for their beliefs but for their "intent" on the forum and that would be Troll.

 

A Skeptic and I can agree on something even if that agreement is to disagree, it is mutual respect for each others views even if they are polar opposites that differentiate.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

I voted BiGFooT. 

[Bonehead74]

Hello Faenor,

 

 

And I think it is an accurate appellation. If one repeatedly denies the existence of a thing by voicing one's skepticism through scoffing in a systematic fashion, one becomes a denialist and scofftic by definition.

There was another popular term used to describe people who worked as slaves. It was an accurate apellation since the latin root of the word meant black. It began as a neutral term.

 

Crummy analogy.

Its extreme but its apt. The terms scofftic and denialist are used as pejoratives. Do you feel the folks who use these terms are being respectful and that its the best method to display an opinion about anothers beliefs or thoughts. Do you think the people labeled scofftic or denialist came to this forum saying "im a denialist scofftic thats the best way to describe my attitudes towards the subject of bigfoot".

There used as negatives around here same as "believer" or "blargger" or whatever at the skeptics forum.

I honestly only use it as a descriptor.

How often have you publicly decried the near constant use of pejoratives to describe Bigfoot proponents? I'm sure you can provide numerous links to posts where you come to the defense of those folks, yes?